Could atheist westerners, please explain?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I would say that religious or ideological motivation isn't something that matters only to cannon fodder, in my opinion it provide framework for entire conflict. When you fight with infidels peace isn't something that comes to mind as easily as when you fight with the enemy, when you're in a war against subhumans no mean is to horrible to use.

War between III Reich and USSR can't exactly be called religious (though calling nazism cult heavily borrowing from religious language wouldn't be out of place I would say; marxism-leninism on the other hand was religion [Rafał Imos, Faith of the Soviet Man. The Soviet's Institutionalized Myth, Raymond Aron The Opium of the Intellectuals], though Aron saw it as political religion, or poor man substitute) but it is ideology which lead to cruelties committed on Eastern Front. To be fair there was other reasons but one could look to Western Front and compare things. If not for belief of Russians racial inferiority and Jewishness of it's system I wager war would look different.

You could also look on deeds of Stalin regime where military language in used in context of economy was far from uncommon - from what I read older works ascribe more importance to ideology/state religion, same with books written by those who suffered during years of dictator rule. Good examples could be Escape from Russian Chains by Ivan Solonievich, or Martin Malia The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991 in which ideology/state religion play a great role, constantly being shown as more important than economy. There is also other view - Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953 redacted by Timothy Snyder sees ideology/state religion only as justification and deeds of regime which appeared irrational to victims were supposed to be rational in larger sense of country well-being. I must say I don't agree with Snyder view - you could say that forced relocation to inhospitable regions of country was good for said country, but you would be hard pressed to claim rationality in such endeavors when you consider in what circumstances it took place. Same is with Great Terror - in book redacted by Snyder it is shown as ultimate anty spy action and considered more or less good for regime. But again where is rationality in forcing your own secret police to see plots where there are none and murdering innocent citizens? It's only framework of ideology/state religion that could make it appear rational - when survival of Homeland of Revolution is at stake individual rights and lives doesn't matter; if being closer to socialism mean intensifying of class struggle (Stalin own invention) then you can argue that regime will be opposed when there is no real enemies left, or no hope for prevailing. It's this invention that allowed Stalin to claim that peasants during Great Hunger were fighting against the state by starving.

Another showing of ideology mattering would be Shoah - killing Jews when there was real enemy to be killed could only be called rational when they're greater enemy standing behind everything, or to put it bluntly only if framework for judging rationality was nazi ideology. Raul Hilberg in his The Destruction of the European Jews shown that while arization was short term gain for III Reich it was long term loss. If I remember right same was with the killing - rational thing to do would be using Jewish labourers (I don't say leaving Jews alone cause, well Nazis were Nazis). Apart from being morally reprehensible killing Jews was irrational - it show that ideology matters not only to foot soldiers.

You're quite right; I stand corrected. 

Insane religious ideologies (including Leninist-style Marxism, which is an economic concept elevated to the level of cult/religion) carried out by leaders who are True Believers™ may indeed be a primary influence of the guy who decides where to send the fodder, and why. Perhaps we should think of it as an aggravating factor to the horrors of war. Even the Nazis were originally motivated by economics; the hatred stuff was just to help coalesce the feelings of anger and frustration over the economic situation toward a common enemy against whom the Germans could rally. That their Furher also was a True Believer™ does mean I need to correct my assertion that only the fodder cares about those factors.

I'd say that today's situation, about which Atlas complains, is also the product of economics. We (the Western powers) have dominated those nations and played chess with the peoples of those nations for so long, it's hardly surprising that leaders have arisen among them to feed the aggravating factor of their underlying religious sentiments such that they begin to see us as The Enemies of God™, to be destroyed at all costs. What I meant by that "the fodder" quip was that religious ideology is what it takes to push most of the people of a nation into doing what the leaders want (even if, as you point out, the leaders are also similarly motivated in addition to their economic interests in the conflict), so they will Die Selflessly For The Mother/Fatherland™.

ETA: It's clear to all of us that Atlas' tirades on here are skewed by a heavy-handed propaganda-set he's been fed by such leaders and their cronies/followers, under the guise of religious "wisdom", that is trying to rally the Muslim peoples against the Hated Western Powers™ by teaching them false and overgeneralized information about us and how we think/operate. Which makes it that much more heartbreaking, since he's clearly a smart guy.